Felt’s family issued a statement which said: “The family believes my grandfather, Mark Felt Sr., is a great American hero who went well above and beyond the call of duty at much risk to himself to save his country from a horrible injustice. We all sincerely hope the country will see him this way as well.”

Felt suffered a stroke several years ago and lives with his daughter, Joan, in Santa Rosa. It appears he kept his Deep Throat identity a secret from his family until 2002. According to the family statement, Felt said: “I guess people used to think Deep Throat was a criminal, but now they think he was a hero.”

John D. Ehrlichman, jailed for his role in the Watergate scandal, has died, aged 73.

Ehrlichman died in Atlanta, Georgia, of natural causes.

Ehrlichman was President Richard Nixon’s Domestic Affairs Advisor from the start of Nixon’s term in 1969. Together with H. R. Haldeman, who died some years ago, Ehrlichman formed part of the “Berlin Wall” that protected Nixon.

Ehrlichman and Haldeman were both sacked by Nixon in April 1973. They had been summoned to the presidential retreat at Camp David after Nixon’s counsel, John Dean, implicated them in the cover-up of the break-in at the headquarters of the Democratic Party’s National Committee headquarters at the Watergate hotel in Washington.

Nixon sacked Dean and called on Ehrlichman and Haldeman to resign.

Ehrlichman was convicted of obstruction of justice, conspiracy and perjury, and was jailed for four to eight years in October 1976. He spent 18 months behind bars.

Nixon resigned the presidency on August 9, 1974, following the passage of 3 articles of impeachment by the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee.

Ehrlichman’s conviction arose from his false testimony to the Senate Watergate Committee and through his involvement in the burglary of the office of Dr. Lewis Fielding, the psychiatrist who treated Daniel Ellsberg. Ellsberg was the Defence Department official who leaked the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times.

This is a memorandum prepared for the Watergate Special Prosecutor, Leon Jaworksi, on the day Richard Nixon resigned the presidency.

It was prepared by Carl Feldbaum and Peter Kreindler.

WATERGATE SPECIAL PROSECUTION FORCE

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

MEMORANDUM

TO: Leon Jaworski, Special Prosecutor

DATE: August 9, 1974

FROM: Carl B Feldbaum & Peter M. Kreindler

SUBJECT: Factors to be Considered in Deciding Whether to Prosecute Richard M. Nixon for Obstruction of Justice

In our view there is clear evidence that Richard M. Nixon participated in a conspiracy to obstruct justice by concealing the identity of those responsible for the Watergate break-in and other criminal offenses. There is a presumption (which in the past we have operated upon) that Richard M. Nixon, like every citizen, is subject to the rule of law. Accordingly, one begins with the premise that if there is sufficient evidence, Mr. Nixon should be indicted and prosecuted. The question then becomes whether the presumption for proceeding is outweighed by the factors mandating against indictment and prosecution.

The factors which mandate against indictment and prosecution are:

His resignation has been sufficient punishment.

He has been subject to an impeachment inquiry with resulting articles of impeachment which the House Judiciary Committee unanimously endorsed as to Article I (the Watergate cover-up).

Prosecution might aggravate political divisions in the country.

As a political matter, the times call for conciliation rather than recrimination.

There would be considerable difficulty in achieving a fair trial because of massive pre-trial publicity.

The factors which mandate in favor of indictment and prosecution are:

The principle of equal justice under law requires that every person, no matter what his past position or office, answer to the criminal justice system for his past offenses. This is a particularly weighty factor if Mr. Nixon’s aides and associates, who acted upon his orders and what they conceived to be his interests, are to be prosecuted for she same offenses.

The country will be further divided by Mr. Nixon unless there is a final disposition of charges of criminality outstanding against him so as to forestall the belief that he was driven from his office by erosion of his political base. This final disposition may be necessary to preserve the integrity of the criminal justice system and the legislative process, which together marshalled the substantial evidence of Mr. Nixon’s guilt.

Article I, Section 3, clause 7 of the Constitution provides that a person removed from office by impeachment and conviction “shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishment, according to Law.” The Framers contemplated that a person removed from office because of abuse of his public trust still would have to answer to the criminal justice system for criminal offenses.

It cannot be sufficient retribution for criminal offenses merely to surrender the public office and trust which has been demonstrably abused. A person should not be permitted to trade in the abused office in return for immunity.

The modern nature of the Presidency necessitates massive public exposure of the President’s actions through the media. A bar to prosecution on the grounds of such publicity effectively would immunize all future Presidents for their actions, however criminal. Moreover, the courts may be the appropriate forum to resolve questions of pre-trial publicity in the context of an adversary proceeding.

President Nixon used his third address to the nation on Watergate to release edited transcripts of the White House tapes.

Text of President Richard Nixon’s Address to the Nation about the Watergate tapes.

Good evening:

I have asked for this time tonight in order to announce my answer to the House Judiciary Committee’s subpoena for additional Watergate tapes, and to tell you something about the actions I shall be taking tomorrow—about what I hope they will mean to you and about the very difficult choices that were presented to me.

These actions will at last, once and for all, show that what I knew and what I did with regard to the Watergate break-in and coverup were just as I have described them to you from the very beginning.

I have spent many hours during the past few weeks thinking about what I would say to the American people if I were to reach the decision I shall announce tonight. And so, my words have not been lightly chosen; I can assure you they are deeply felt.

It was almost 2 years ago, in June 1972 that five men broke into the Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington. It turned out that they were connected with my reelection committee, and the Watergate break-in became a major issue in the campaign.

The full resources of the FBI and the Justice Department were used to investigate the incident thoroughly. I instructed my staff and campaign aides to cooperate fully with the investigation. The FBI conducted nearly 1,500 interviews. For 9 months—until March 1973—I was assured by those charged with conducting and monitoring the investigations that no one in the White House was involved. [Read more…]

Nixon delivered his second speech on Watergate just over three months after the drama of the first.

This time there were no further resignations or dismissal. Instead, Nixon road-tested the executive privilege argument about the Watergate tapes and decried the nation’s “backward-looking obsession with Watergate”.

Text of President Richard Nixon’s second speech on Watergate.

Good evening:

Now that most of the major witnesses in the Watergate phase of the Senate committee hearings on campaign practices have been heard, the time has come for me to speak out about the charges made and to provide a perspective on the issue for the American people.

For over 4 months, Watergate has dominated the news media. During the past 3 months, the three major networks have devoted an average of over 22 hours of television time each week to this subject. The Senate committee has heard over 2 million words of testimony.

This investigation began as an effort to discover the facts about the break-in and bugging of the Democratic National Headquarters and other campaign abuses. [Read more…]